Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Srikanth R.

unread,
May 1, 2017, 7:03:25 PM5/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I would humbly submit that scientific skeptics of concepts such as the "soul" or "mind", although sincere in their own way, are erring by being "too careful" in pushing the scientific proof paradigm beyond its legitimate scope.

Such skeptics should ponder about what would constitute a proof of the soul or mind. There are two levels of difficulty here: 
  1. It would difficult to provide "evidence" beyond reasonable doubt for such concepts: for example, if a shadowy figure resembling the dying person was photographed and adduced as evidence of postmortem continuity consciousness, this might be "explained" as a remnant electromagnetic discharge or whatever. Hope you get the drift!
  2. We are intimately aware of our own "I" consciousness, Yet each of us is unable to prove to another that we are conscious beings. The best we can do is pass the Turing test resoundingly, but even we would admit that this would be inconclusive. 
So, this dilemma should be the point of the departure towards spiritual inquiry, that interested scientific skeptics may want to use. They may wish to accept that certain subjective realities, which while they are intimately and immediately true, are manifestly unprovable and hence have to be accepted by analogy to one's own subjective reality, rather than by the traditional scientific method of objective experimentation. 

Extrapolating this line of thought, the opinions of spiritual luminaries like Shri Ramakrishna or Shri Ramana Maharshi, who evidently had very clear "subjective channels", are worthy of serious consideration. 

On a lighter vein: here, the type of researcher we need is meditators with a PhD !!

Thanks!!
Srik

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 6:15 PM, priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com> wrote:
Shanta,

Thanks for your careful reading of what I wrote and thoughtful response. I am still at a loss though of what his higher intelligence and what is lower intelligence. You have simply shown how humans are different from other animals in the activities they perform. I also do not understand what is higher knowledge and what is lower knowledge. I do not agree with your interpretation of Socrates. It is not humility but honesty. Socrates was not a specialist in anything so he did not have knowledge in anything. There were specialists who claimed to have knowledge in their specializations but upon being interviewed by Socrates they were exposed to not have the knowledge that they claimed to have. This does not mean that Socrates knew more about their specialization than they did. The lesson is one should never be over confident nor dogmatic. At the time there was a sense, as there is perhaps today as well, that certain people like poets, statesmen, academicians and intellectuals had more knowledge than craftspersons. Socrates is also challenging this view as he interviews famous people not ordinary craftspersons. Plato in his dialogues also uses a lot of examples from crafts to make his points showing his great respect of craftspersons and knowledge by experience and hard work. There are multiple domains of knowledge and I just do not see why and how the knowledge of a carpenter is a lower knowledge than the knowledge of a laboratory scientist. Feels good to say this on May Day.

Priyedarshi



On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:
Dear Priyedarshi Jetli ji
 
Namaskar.
 
Every living entity is endowed with certain degree of intelligence and it is not a presumption but is a scientifically confirmed fact (you may read the paper “Bacteria are small but not stupid”). Hence, it is oblivious that bees are also intelligent.  As far as comparing the intelligence of nonhuman creatures with human being is concerted, please note that intelligence is a subjective quality of the living entity and there are no standard units (like meter or kilogram) to measure and compare the same. We can only compare it with respect to different point of views. It is an observable fact that as compared to human beings different nonhuman living entities are very expert in fulfilling the immediate biological needs: eating (a pig can eat anything and everything), sleeping (a python can happily sleep for long long time), mating and defending. They do not need any special education and scientific research to perform these tasks and yet our modern education and scientific research works are mostly focused towards fulfilling these immediate biological needs only. Hence, you are correct in that sense that many of nonhuman creatures are more intelligent than human beings. But in another sense we human beings also systematically pursue philosophy, science, religion and so on, which we do not find in nonhuman creatures. So the judgment of the intelligence of different living entities depends on the angle of vision.
 
You have told “As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it.” and in contrast to what you have claimed in this sentence you have quoted some authorities (Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Christ and many others) to try to justify your view points. Your statement “In the case of Socrates he can only help others gain knowledge because he himself does not have knowledge.” is completely misleading because Socrates could readily embrace the humility that “I know that I know nothing”. So, Socrates does have some higher knowledge because he has already realized the limits of egocentric knowledge gaining and that is the reason that he could teach to those who are ignorant (because they fancy that they know something) about this important humility that is very much essential for any genuine enlightenment. Regarding the question that how we can know who has higher knowledge and who has not, we have to realize that real knowledge does not originate from us (it is much beyond the reach of egocentric self) and hence we can never know by our own abilities alone what real knowledge is and who has that. Only we can sincerely hanker for that and we can only hope that some help will descend from the higher plane.    
 
Thanking you.
 
Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
 +91-(9748906907)
 #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India



On Sunday, 30 April 2017 9:27 PM, priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com> wrote:


Shanta,

Quite loaded with standard presumptions. What or who is an "intelligent being". Are bees not intelligent? They are more intelligent than humans in some aspects. To first place humans above other animals and then call them intelligent and then say that they come from an even more intelligent being is not a very convincing argument I am afraid.

As for needing help from those who have higher knowledge, I do not like the authoritative tint you give it. The pedagogical message of Buddha, Scocrates, Confucious, Christ and many others is that knowledge is to be sought by the knower, who can be guided by a wise person but the wise person cannot impart knowledge to the knower. In the case of Socrates he can only help others gain knowledge because he himself does not have knowledge. It is a completely anti-authoritarian account of knowledge. If you say some have higher knowledge than others you will get caught in an authoritarian vicious circle. Who will decide that X has higher knowledge than I do. There will be some Y who has higher knowledge than X and I who can decide that. Then there will have to be a Z who has higher knowledge than Y to decide on the authority of Y to make the decision he does. And so on..... 

Priyedarshi

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:
Dear Dr. Ádám Kun
 
Namaskar. Thank you for your reply.
 
You have told “Richard Lenski's study of E.coli evolution is not a study of macroevulution. Long-term evolution does not equate to macroevolution... So it does prove that novelty can arise in evolutionary experiments.”
 
We repeat that there is no empirical evidence that can support the idea that macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of microevolution added up. The notion that in future microevolution will produce macroevolution is a mere dogmatic faith and there is no valid reason for believing that studies founded on such mere belief system have some scientific standing.  
 
Your have stated “Please have this argument with those well-versed in the philosophy of science. I admit my limitations. To be honest we do not know if the Sun will rise in the east and set in the west.” If you feel that rising of Sun example belongs to the domain of some sophisticated philosophy of science then let us consider another pure and simple empirical example. We smell by our nose and taste by our tongue. Like evolutionists someone can dogmatically argue that in future it will be reversed: we will smell by our tongue and taste by our nose. When someone challenges that irrational argument then he/she may dogmatically challenge that opposition with the argument similar to yours (Can you prove that macroevolution cannot happen?) “can you prove that in future we cannot smell by our tongue and taste by our nose?” Such naive arguments prove that the supporters of evolution are deviating from the core principles of science and in the process embracing a mere dogmatic attitude to support evolution. Please clarify whether you accept this plain fact or not, because apart from such unscientific arguments you have also repeatedly asserted without any empirical/scientific evidence: “all our knowledge about evolution and the history fo Earth tells us that species came from other species.” (you should remember here that the concept of species is controversial in science and what we are arguing here is about the macroevolution and not about a mere reproductive isolation).   
 
You have further argued “Developmental process can explain some morphological changes. But if that would be the sole difference and it would always be responding to the environment then (1) A chimp raised in a human family would become a human (2) all living organism would share the same genome. None of it is true. Development alone cannot explain the diversification of life.”
 
Embryological development from zygote to the adult organism empirically proves that it is a miraculous process that can produce not only varieties of cells but also varieties of organs that can perform different function in the body as a whole. After the developmental process is finished, except some special cells, the same cells of an organ produce the same cells to meet different requirements of the body. Similarly the first life (God) can miraculously produce varieties of things that are inconceivable for ordinary processes. Your argument that “A chimp raised in a human family would become a human” is irrelevant because a mere environmental pressure will not force the heart organ to transform into an eye organ. The next argument of yours “all living organism would share the same genome” simply emphasizes the uniformitarian mindset that is commonly practiced in physical sciences but there is no scientific reason to believe that life/nature is enslaved to follow that dictum. You may read about chimera (genetics)  to sense the complex nature of life on our Earth. Thus all empirical evidence confirms that the miraculous developmental process alone can explain the diversification of life. Science must accept miracles because it is empirically observed fact (embryological development) and our scientific methods cannot imitate the same (all the science and all the scientists in the world together cannot make a single blade of grass).   
 
You have told ““If changes occur in the network as a whole, then the various nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the network of life." And that is one way to describe evolution. I'm glad that you are on board :)” If you think that evolution and developmental process are one and same then we have no problem to agree with such a concept of evolution.
 
About the views of scientists under www.thethirdwayofevolution.com you have told “Did they ever question the basics of evolution...?” Please elaborate what are those basics of evolution.
 
By citing the transient nature of material world (everything has a beginning and an end) you have strangely concluded that “The ape ancestor is our beginning, and an evolved human being is what will come after us. We cannot come from nothing.” What is the scientific basis for this radical conclusion? Moreover, a frog in a well cannot understand the phenomenon of gigantic ocean and thus our tiny brains cannot conceive the realty that is much beyond our observational limits. The transient material world is only a perverted reflection of eternal spiritual world. The word temporary has no meaning if there is nothing permanent.   
 
You have also told “Survival of the fittest. This is a catchy phrase. It does not equate the "only one one can remain" (as in the Highlander movie). So we also need food, and our being fit includes the survival of other species too. Exploitation has an evil connotation. We are heterotrophs, thus we eat other beings (or parts of other beings). I do not think that it makes us evil.”
 
On what basis you justify the practice of exploitation attitude! Do you think that there is a way to overcome it? Obviously the concept of evolution does not have any foundation to help us overcome the spirit of exploitation. But the concept of an organic whole does teach us that there is a way by which we can overcome the exploitative spirit. But we leave that to you to understand it by yourself.   
 
You have asked us “We cannot explain how we became intelligent. We generally cannot, so it is not the problem of evolution or any other branch of knowing, it is our lack of knowledge. Do you know how we become "knowing"?”
 
At least we know from empirical observation that every intelligent being comes from a preexisting intelligent being and an intelligent being does not appear from the mechanical or chemical aggregation of dull matter. Thus, an intelligent sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself – omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. Moreover, in the miraculous developmental process a heart organ is endowed with the intelligence to perform the function of heart, an eye organ is endowed with the intelligence to perform the function of eye and so on. So the varieties of intelligent cells and organs appear from the developmental process and not by evolution. Similarly, different living organisms are part of an organic whole and are endowed with the appropriate intelligence to serve the purpose of that whole. Therefore, it is not the lack of knowledge but the practice of stubborn support for evolution that forces us to embrace the ignorance by simply denying the evidence.  
 
You have also not provided any scientific basis for your final conclusion “Evolutionary psychology has a scientific basis. As it involves humans, it is not very easy to do experiments. If any kind of study of the human mind is unscientific, then what is this mailing list about? If inquiry about the mind is a valid scientific pursuit then evolutionary psychology is fine.” Study of human mind is not unscientific but, to dogmatically insist that it came from nonhuman mind is unscientific. One cannot simply inquire and know things, otherwise why we have schooling system. To have proper knowledge one also needs some significant practical help from someone who has the higher knowledge.
 
Thanking you.
 
Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
 +91-(9748906907)
 #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India


On Saturday, 29 April 2017 12:23 AM, Kun Ádám <kun...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote:


Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta,

Thank you very much for your reply.
(1) Richard Lenski's study of E.coli evolution is not a study of
macroevulution. Long-term evolution does not equate to macroevolution.
Those bacteria are grown on a minimal media with sugar being their main,
an in some sense only food source. E.coli can live under such
environment. The evolutionary experiment show that they can actually
become very good at it. Mostly this is stabilizing selection. On the
other hand, they have also found that there is evolutionary novelty: in
some lines the bacteria evolved to be able to take up and utilize
citrate. So it does prove that novelty can arise in evolutionary
experiments.

> The stereotype unscientific arguments (like, “/Can you prove that
> macroevolution cannot happen? Please bear in mind that absence of
> evidence is not evidence for absence./”) will not make a scientific
> case in the support of macroevolution. Do you think that modern
> science is founded on this type of naive arguments? Anyone can make a
> statement that after 1000 years Sun will rise in the west and then can
> argue (similar to your argument) with opponents that /can you prove
> that/ “/Sun cannot rise in the west/”. Any layman can construct
> several such arguments and do you expect that science should accept
> all of them? To defend evolution we should not deviate from the core
> scientific process that modern science follows and we should always
> remember that science is not a practice of dogma.
(2) Please have this argument with those well-versed in the philosophy
of science. I admit my limitations. To be honest we do not know if the
Sun will rise in the east and set in the west. As far as we know it does
it, and all our models of how the Earth revolve around the Sun predict
that it will be so tomorrow. Can you be sure? In similar veins all our
knowledge about evolution and the history fo Earth tells us that species
came from other species.
> You have told “/Evolution at least can explain the origin and
> diversification life./” Why do you think that people should believe
> this? What is the scientific basis?
> You have asked “/What would be your alternative?/” The first message
> on this thread
> explains the alternative (developmental process and not evolution that
> causes the appearance of biodiversity) and we had further clarified
> the same in our reply to Vinod Sehgal
>
>
Developmental process can explain some morphological changes. But if
that would be the sole difference and it would always be responding to
the environment then (1) A chimp raised in a human family would become a
human (2) all living organism would share the same genome. None of it is
true. Development alone cannot explain the diversification of life.

> You have told “/We find different diversity in different historical
> layers in the fossil record./” All living entities are related to each
> other like a net, with the different species representing the nodes of
> that network. Vedic chronology talks about different /Yuga/ cycles and
> thus time and again our world has witnessed a drastic change, which
> has led to a significant change in the network of life on our Earth at
> different periods of life. If changes occur in the network as a whole,
> then the various nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the
> harmony of the network of life. Fossil record only gives a hint of
> those changes. You have also told “/Getting from a time with less
> species to a time with more necessitates a mechanism to get new
> species. Evolution is such a mechanism./” At present stage this is a
> pure speculation because we do not have any scientific method that can
> accurately predict the chronology from the fossil record. We have
> discussed that in a book chapter “The Chronology of Geological Column:
> An Incomplete Tool to Search Georesources
>
You say: "If changes occur in the network as a whole, then the various
nodes (species) change accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the
network of life." And that is one way to describe evolution. I'm glad
that you are on board :)
> The scientists under thethirdwayofevolution
> <http://www. thethirdwayofevolution.com/> have already supplied
> significant scientific evidence against the concept of evolution that
> is commonly taught in different universities and colleges across the
> world. That itself is enough to demand a change in the syllabus to
> meet the revolutionary realization of 21st century biology. However,
> at preset even that much humility is not shown by the majority of
> scientific community and hence Joseph A. Kuhn, MD
> paper ‘Dissecting Darwinism
> In essence, current biology students, aspiring medical students, and
> future scientists are not being taught the whole story. Rather,
> evidence suggests that they continue to receive incorrect and
> incomplete material that exaggerates the effect of random mutation and
> natural selection to account for DNA, the cell, or the transition from
> species to species.
Did they ever question the basics of evolution and not some particular
part of biology? Please read their work! They are evolutionary biologist
of the XXI.c. And indeed some advances of the last decades have not
dribbled down to all branches of education. The broad strokes one learns
in elementary and secondary school are solid enough, biology students
should learn the most up to date form of evolution.
> You have told “/Questioning something is scientific. Stating that it
> is untrue because you wish it to be so is not./” We are questioning
> those presumptions (speculations: human beings came from apes) that
> are against the observable empirical evidence (empirically verifiable:
> human comes from human and apes comes from apes). What is the
> scientific basis for your assertion?
I think there is a fundamental difference between our thinking. I
observe that there are beginning and ends. The sun come up, and thus our
day begins. And then it settles and thus the day concludes. The desk I'm
sitting in front of has a finite dimension, I can touch its perimeter.
My life had a beginning, and evidence about other humans tell me that it
will have an end (hopefully not in the near future). If everything I
observe has a beginning and and end, then humanity as a species should
have a beginning and and end too. The ape ancestor is our beginning, and
an evolved human being is what will come after us. We cannot come from
nothing.
> You have told “/Evolution does not in any sense teaches materialistic
> world view more than any other branch of the natural sciences. And
> that materialistic world view is by no means a common knowledge. If
> people would take evolutionary theory to their hearth, which by the
> way includes all biology ecology included, they would know that
> destroying species and our environment is bad for us. The urge for
> //selfishness as centerpiece in evolution was propagated by
> politicians and not by scientist./” If you think that selfishness is
> not the centerpiece in evolution then why it propagates the concept of
> survival of fittest. Without any foundation how the concept of
> (objective) evolution or materialistic world view can teach the
> concept: ‘destroying species and our environment is bad for us.’ Every
> organism is dependent on other organisms for food and survival.
> Without exploiting other living entities and environment how the
> evolution that is taught in colleges and universities across the world
> can justify the survival? Evolution also does not explain: by what
> mechanism ‘a piece of matter’/’the fist life (first cell)’/’the
> successive living entities’ developed the /knowing ability/ that
> helped them /realize /that ‘destroying species and our environment is
> bad for us.’
Survival of the fittest. This is a catchy phrase. It does not equate the
"only one one can remain" (as in the Highlander movie). So we also need
food, and our being fit includes the survival of other species too.
Exploitation has an evil connotation. We are heterotrophs, thus we eat
other beings (or parts of other beings). I do not think that it makes us
evil.
We cannot explain how we became intelligent. We generally cannot, so it
is not the problem of evolution or any other branch of knowing, it is
our lack of knowledge. Do you know how we become "knowing"?
> You have also told “/Evolutionary theory of the present (and not that
> of the '80) tries to understand why we are moral and does not argue
> against our highly cooperative nature./” You should know that
> evolutionary psychology (EP) cannot unify the social and natural
> sciences because except pure mental speculations it does not have any
> real scientific foundation (it cannot satisfy the rigorous demands of
> experimental evolutionary biology)
Evolutionary psychology has a scientific basis. As it involves humans,
it is not very easy to do experiments. If any kind of study of the human
mind is unscientific, then what is this mailing list about? If inquiry
about the mind is a valid scientific pursuit then evolutionary
psychology is fine.

best wishes,
  Ádám


On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 9:56:09 PM UTC+5:30, kunadam wrote:
>
>    Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta,
>
>
>    > It is a common practice in modern science where based on
>    evidence many
>    > presumed concepts are replaced by new concepts. If we are following
>    > the same process that modern science follows then there is a valid
>    > scientific reason behind the evidence based refutation of evolution
>    > theory.
>    Sure.
>    > If microevolution constitutes most of the evolution theory then
>    there
>    > should not be a problem for any scientist to accept the same. As
>    you
>    > have accepted that it is not easy to do experiments on
>    macroevolution
>    > (although we can find experimental studies on bacteria which
>    disprove
>    > macroevolution) and hence we should not propagate a purely faith
>    based
>    > opinion (macroevolution is nothing but the repeated rounds of
>    > microevolution added up) on the name of science. Fossil record also
>    > does not prove this concept that macroevolution is nothing but the
>    > repeated rounds of microevolution added up.
>    Which study on bacteria did disprove macroevolution?
>    Can you prove that macroevolution cannot happen? Please bear in mind
>    that absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I.e. the
>    fact that
>    we cannot do macroevolutionary experiment because of time constraints
>    does not disprove the theory. Indirect evidence in the fossil record
>    proves that macroevolution works. Why do you think that it does not?
>    > What is the scientific justification for the rigid stand to presume
>    > evolution as the cause of origin of life and biodiversity? We
>    cannot
>    > accept certain presumption as scientific just because there are
>    many
>    > scientists who believe that presumption. Scientific conclusions are
>    > not accepted on the basis of majority voting. Accepting truth on
>    the
>    > basis of consensus is not science.
>    Evolution at least can explain the origin and diversification
>    life. What
>    would be your alternative? Saying the life and the diversity of it
>    always existed does not solve the question. As for diversity we
>    know it
>    dwindles and rises through history. We find different diversity in
>    different historical layers in the fossil record. Getting from a time
>    with less species to a time with more necessitates a mechanism to get
>    new species. Evolution is such a mechanism.
>    > Scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution
>    <http://www. thethirdwayofevolution.com/>> have realized the
>    > unscientific nature of evolution theory that is commonly taught in
>    > different universities and colleges across the world. This
>    realization
>    > is purely based on scientific evidence. Presuming that evolution is
>    > the only process by which biodiversity has manifested on our Earth,
>    > the scientists under the banner of thethirdwayofevolution
>    <http://www. thethirdwayofevolution.com/>> are trying to explore what
>    > are the other possible ways that evolution might have happened.
>    These
>    > scientists have also not provided any credible evidence that
>    > demonstrates the mechanism for macroevolution. One can believe
>    > different things but just a mere belief is not science. In
>    science we
>    > have to support our presumptions with the valid scientific
>    evidence.
>    Those people questioned some part of the theory. There is progress in
>    evolutionary theory, it is not a stale branch of science. They do not
>    question the foundation of evolutionary theory. So please do not
>    quote
>    them as opposing evolution. They do not.
>    > We agree with you that learning is a process [of overcoming the
>    > ignorance] and scientifically questioning “evolution theory” is
>    also a
>    > part of that process. We have not told that we should abandon
>    science
>    > and scientifically questioning evolution theory is not equal to the
>    > process of abandonment of science because science does not mean
>    > “evolution theory”.
>    Questioning something is scientific. Stating that it is untrue
>    because
>    you wish it to be so is not.
>    > You have written “/I kept on asking what is your problem with
>    > evolution, and you keep on not answering that question. How does
>    > evolution interfere with your /
>    > /faith? How does it interfere with your study of consciousnesses?/”
>    > Teaching of evolution theory is actually a great disservice to the
>    > human civilization. Evolution theory tries to cultivate a
>    > materialistic attitude in society, where individuals try to find
>    > themselves in a position of superiority, which would allow them to
>    > exploit and oppress nature. If someone feels the urge to exploit or
>    > oppress other human beings then evolution theory justifies that
>    urge.
>    > Accordingly to evolution theory the mood of exploitation and
>    > oppression is the natural instinct of every individual which is
>    > established by millions of years of evolution. If that is true then
>    > why there is a judiciary system in our society to discipline
>    these bad
>    > urges. Evolution theory propagates many such delusions that are
>    > utterly against our true spiritual nature (consciousness) and
>    thus is
>    > an extremely harmful unscientific concept. We have explained many
>    > times on this forum that a genuine scientist follows the evidence
>    > wherever it may lead. One of the works of our institute is to
>    > inculcate this type of genuine scientific attitude in our
>    society for
>    > the betterment of humanity.
>    This is a misconception. Evolution does not in any sense teaches
>    materialistic world view more than any other branch of the natural
>    sciences. And that materialistic world view is by no means a common
>    knowledge. If people would take evolutionary theory to their hearth,
>    which by the way includes all biology ecology included, they would
>    know
>    that destroying species and our environment is bad for us. The
>    urge for
>    selfishness as centerpiece in evolution was propagated by politicians
>    and not by scientist. I strongly recommend to read Frans de Waal's
>    "The
>    bonobo and the atheist". He labels this thinking of bad urges and
>    a good
>    jurisdictional system the veneer theory. Evolutionary theory of the
>    present (and not that of the '80) tries to understand why we are
>    moral
>    and does not argue against our highly cooperative nature.
>    If as you wish evolution would be scraped from the curricula of
>    education, what would happen? I hasten yo say we are speaking about a
>    handful of lectures (so a few hours at most) in high school and then
>    some courses in biology BSc/MSc. And most people have no idea what
>    evolution is, maybe except that dinos are now extinct, which is more
>    paleontology than evolution. So what would happen? People will leave
>    their car so to produce less CO2? They will not eat beef and would
>    revert to pork just to use less water? They will magically become
>    more
>    friendly, even thought politicians are constantly urging them to heat
>    someone?
>    I wish people would know much more about evolution! Because then they
>    would understand that humans are not the pinnacle of creation but one
>    species among the many. Then they would understand - as Serge
>    Patlavskiy
>    said - that there no duller and brighter animals. They can cope with
>    their environment, and they are much better at coping with their
>    environment than we would be in coping with theirs despite our larger
>    brains. We are the best at being humans. That is our niche.
>    If people would know more evolutionary theory then they would also
>    know
>    that there are more cooperative / mutualistic interaction among
>    species
>    that competitive. Competition is bad, takes energy, and thus organism
>    evolve to lessen competition. This is niche segregation.
>
>    So it is not evolutionary theory that does disservice to humanity but
>    the misunderstanding of it, and employing scientific terms to
>    validates
>    one's evil. I think you should be fighting against bad attitudes
>    in our
>    society and not against a scientific field that very few people
>    understand or care about. And if you do care about evolutionary
>    theory,
>    then I bet you will find more synergy with what you try to achieve
>    than
>    opposition.
>
>    best wishes,
>      Ádám
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 23 April 2017 3:53 PM, Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
> <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:
>
>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138


Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org



---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 456083847.711158. 1493538240093%40mail.yahoo.com .

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfDhQ3dPGFuD31c5HhkGfcvaW7bUEPcoNQxJsGbtDwfGPg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/892019016.1294715.1493611978720%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfBcmXqowQSDdUzzHDMJnppCfw5CYBXTXrgZ2hNTtG_PJw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--


Dr. R. Srikanth
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Theoretical Sciences
Poornaprajna Institute of Scientific Research
Bangalore- 560 080, Karnataka, India.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 2, 2017, 5:14:06 AM5/2/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Srikanth,

You say "They may wish to accept that certain subjective realities, which while they are intimately and immediately true, are manifestly unprovable and hence have to be accepted by analogy to one's own subjective reality, rather than by the traditional scientific method of objective experimentation."

I am not a scientist but you have prudently and correctly used the word "may" as scientists may reject that there is some privileged subjective reality in what is called the "first person perspective". Many in the standard philosophy of mind debate make a distinction between the first person perspective and the third person perspective and go for the argument by analogy for the existence of other minds. However, Wittgenstein had rejected this, arguing that the criterion for my having a pain and another having a pain is the same, a type of behaviour and not a subjective feeling.

Priyedarshi 



...

[Message clipped]  

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 2, 2017, 3:13:02 PM5/2/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Srikanth,

On 01 May 2017, at 22:52, Srikanth R. wrote:

I would humbly submit that scientific skeptics of concepts such as the "soul" or "mind", although sincere in their own way, are erring by being "too careful" in pushing the scientific proof paradigm beyond its legitimate scope.

I think that they are not enough "careful" in doing so. I agree most are erring, but not because they would be pushing the scientific proof paradigm out of its legitimate scope, but because they ignore the data and the questions asked.




Such skeptics should ponder about what would constitute a proof of the soul or mind. There are two levels of difficulty here: 
  1. It would difficult to provide "evidence" beyond reasonable doubt for such concepts: for example, if a shadowy figure resembling the dying person was photographed and adduced as evidence of postmortem continuity consciousness, this might be "explained" as a remnant electromagnetic discharge or whatever. Hope you get the drift!
  2. We are intimately aware of our own "I" consciousness, Yet each of us is unable to prove to another that we are conscious beings.
Glad to hear that. I suggest this as a first axiom on consciousness on which we can perhaps agree. Consciousness is true and not provable. And perhaps most people here might agree with a second axiom: consciousness is undoubtable. But that might be derived from less assumption. We cannot doubt our consciousness because to genuinely doubt, we need to be conscious.

This suggests also a way to work "scientifically" on consciousness. We can agree on some axiom(s) and then search if something obeys to such or similar axioms. In that case, computer science and mathematical logic suggest already a candidate for the first axiom above: the unprovability of consciousness. Indeed, thanks to the work of Gödel, we can readily show that for *all* "sufficiently rich machine there is a true proposition about them that the machine cannot prove: consistency. Now, consistency is a pure third persn notion, and it would be ridiculous to equate it with consciousness, yet, it might still be something playing a role in what is consciousness and justifying its unprovability. This is even more so due to the fact that the "sufficiently rich" machine or theories are able to prove their own incompleteness in the conditional way. such machine do prove that ((I am consistent) -> (I cannot prove (I am consistent)), and so, if they have some abductive inference ability, they can infer the truth of their consistency, or "live" it in some manner.



  1. The best we can do is pass the Turing test resoundingly, but even we would admit that this would be inconclusive. 
So, this dilemma should be the point of the departure towards spiritual inquiry, that interested scientific skeptics may want to use. They may wish to accept that certain subjective realities, which while they are intimately and immediately true, are manifestly unprovable and hence have to be accepted by analogy to one's own subjective reality, rather than by the traditional scientific method of objective experimentation. 

I think scientist must do something like that each time they want to apply a theory to a reality. after all, most believe in a reality, although none can prove that there is a reality, not even of the moon. In fact in science we can only have assumptions, derivation and refutation, but no proof of a positive fact can be done on reality. The essence of science, or at least fundamental science, is already spiritual, as it guesses that there is a reality, perhaps unifiable through some principle(s), and try to experiment with them. Then, unfortunately, when a theory is confirmed for a long period, we forget the hypothetical nature of our theories, and take some reality for granted ... until we get eventually refuted, which is welcome, as this is the part where we really learn something.

Now, concerning the mind body problem, we need also to be coherent. The use of both Materialism and Mechanism leads to serious difficulties. The use of a notion of primary matter to solve the mind-body problem, in the mechanist frame, can be shown similar of the use of God to dismiss the theory of evolution: it is not logically valid. So, in the mechanist frame, primary matter itself is forced to play a "supernatural role" if we want it to select computations in arithmetic, and try to make them more real than other. In philosophy, that type of reification is not valid. This means that mechanism does NOT solve the mind-body problem per se: it makes it two times more difficult: not only we must justify the "non provable character of the personal truth, and explain how we can still know them, but we have to justify the appearance of matter without invoking a magical (non Turing emulable) role that primary matter could play.


Extrapolating this line of thought, the opinions of spiritual luminaries like Shri Ramakrishna or Shri Ramana Maharshi, who evidently had very clear "subjective channels", are worthy of serious consideration. 

Absolutely. I like very much Ramana Maharshi. Its koan "Who am I" is a simple but very good one.



On a lighter vein: here, the type of researcher we need is meditators with a PhD !!

I have a PhD, but I am probably too much biased by my own work and experiences to be a good mediator :)

Bruno



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Shafiq Khan

unread,
May 3, 2017, 6:28:02 AM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,

              Science deals with physical objects and light/radiation whereas soul is the immaterial/incorporeal entity as such science cannot make any inquiry about soul. The proof of existence of soul is the existence of Ego 'the I in the human beings', the innate knowledge of existence of God in every human being and the book of innate moral law in every human being which are embedded in human consciousness..

With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Dear Srikanth,


Thanks!!
Srik

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/690A27A8-0A42-4E3A-BBB1-17AFE25678EA%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 3, 2017, 9:52:56 AM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shafiq,

On 03 May 2017, at 08:26, Shafiq Khan wrote:

Dear All,

              Science deals with physical objects and light/radiation

That is physics, or the natural science. It is only a part of science, and it is fundamental only in Aristotle Naturalist/materialist" context.
Mathematics deals with non material entity, for example.

I don't really believe in science. I believe more in the scientific attitude, which is mainly doubt and modesty, and courage, and the scientist  attempts to be as clear as possible so that he/she/it can be quickly corrected. 

All domains can be approached with the scientific attitude. Some domains are more hot and more inclined to the wishful thinking, but this is a symptom of lack of spiritual maturity. Only bad faith fear reason.



whereas soul is the immaterial/incorporeal entity as such science cannot make any inquiry about soul.

I don't believe in this. It all depends on which theory we (locally) assume. Assuming (digital)  Mechanism, machines have soul obeying precise mathematical laws. For example, the soul of a machine is not a machine, not even anything having a third person description. 



The proof of existence of soul is the existence of Ego

OK. The "Higher Self", not to confuse with the body, nor with the representable beliefs, nor with the "little ego".


'the I in the human beings', the innate knowledge of existence of God in every human being and the book of innate moral law in every human being which are embedded in human consciousness..

And probably the non human too. I could argue for that. 

Best Regards,

Bruno Marchal


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 3, 2017, 12:19:30 PM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shafiq,

If I have no innate knowledge of existence of God, then, according to you, either I am not a human being, or I have established a counterexample that refutes your proof. 

Priyedarshi

Dear Srikanth,

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/690A27A8-0A42-4E3A-BBB1-17AFE25678EA%40ulb.ac.be.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHYwPz0z4wKM_FP4gB6KSnhWq8eorzMWmruBaf7NuQrYhcKvXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Shafiq Khan

unread,
May 3, 2017, 12:20:21 PM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Mr. Bruno,

                         Mathematics is abstract science and as such cannot deal with entities like soul. 

                         Science cannot believe in something which has no physical identity. Every wave-motion (light/radiation is a wave-motion) requires a medium to propagate in but science has rejected existence of aether filling the space because science has failed to physically identify the aether but I have shown that aether exists on the same premises on which it was rejected. This is to show that non-physical entities do exist.
 
                         We cannot know whether animals possess the Ego and we cannot know whether animals have the innate knowledge of existence of God. But the book of innate moral law separates the animals & humans and that is the evidence that animals do not possess souls. 

                           The very purpose of human life is to know the book of innate moral law, inscribed on every human soul, and to adopt this book of innate moral law in life.

With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan
Dear Shafiq,

Dear Srikanth,

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/3A03B54C-39D7-43DF-A174-2274A70DD1F7%40ulb.ac.be.

BMP

unread,
May 3, 2017, 2:41:31 PM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shafiq,

Namaste. Rationally it seems quite correct to infer the "the innate knowledge of existence of God in every human being." As Hegel argued, even an atheist has to have a concept of God in order to deny or refute it. St Anselm explained that the concept of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be thought' is intrinsic to human reason. 

As far as the existence of such a concept, Descartes and other philosophers refer to God as that whose concept and being are congruent, which is the definition of Truth. 

Thank you for your contribution to this list,

SIncerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.


From: Shafiq Khan <shaf...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 3, 2017, 2:41:31 PM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
How do we know that humans have innate knowledge  of God? It is just an assumption!

...

[Message clipped]  

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 3, 2017, 4:54:19 PM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Madhava,

There can be two senses of 'atheism'. The first sense is what you have mentioned, that of those who deny the existence of God. They must first admit the concept of God. But in another sense, atheism is prior to theism. It is the non belief in the existence of God, not a denial of the existence of God. For this no concept of God is required. 

Even if the concept of God is innate it does not follow that the knowledge of the existence of God is innate, which is the claim that Shafiq has made. I have a concept of a unicorn but it does not coincide with the existence of any unicorn.

Priyedarshi

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:06 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Shafiq,

Namaste. Rationally it seems quite correct to infer the "the innate knowledge of existence of God in every human being." As Hegel argued, even an atheist has to have a concept of God in order to deny or refute it. St Anselm explained that the concept of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be thought' is intrinsic to human reason. 

As far as the existence of such a concept, Descartes and other philosophers refer to God as that whose concept and being are congruent, which is the definition of Truth. 

Thank you for your contribution to this list,

SIncerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.


From: Shafiq Khan <shaf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

Dear All,

              Science deals with physical objects and light/radiation whereas soul is the immaterial/incorporeal entity as such science cannot make any inquiry about soul. The proof of existence of soul is the existence of Ego 'the I in the human beings', the innate knowledge of existence of God in every human being and the book of innate moral law in every human being which are embedded in human consciousness..

With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/867681149.2014720.1493836617633%40mail.yahoo.com.

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
May 3, 2017, 4:54:21 PM5/3/17
to 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 06:36:57PM +0000, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> Namaste. Rationally it seems quite correct to infer the "the innate knowledge
> of existence of God in every human being." As Hegel argued, even an atheist has
> to have a concept of God in order to deny or refute it. St Anselm explained
> that the concept of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be thought' is
> intrinsic to human reason.

Honestly, I have no knowledge of nor concept of God. I have various concepts
of other people's concepts of God. But I have no concept of God I'd call my
own. My mother was an athiest. I was raised to make up my own mind about
what people meant by "God." I neither affirm nor deny any of the quite
varried concepts people have of "God."

> As far as the existence of such a concept, Descartes and other philosophers
> refer to God as that whose concept and being are congruent, which is the
> definition of Truth.

The problem with referencing European philosophers from that period is that
many of them were in terror of the Church exiling or killing them. It's an
open question how many paid lip service to "God" to keep the churchmen away.

There are and have been many polytheistic peoples. I suspect, if there is
such a thing as a god at all, these peoples are essentially right, and that
the gods are many, not single. All species of beings in nature occur in
multiples.

Best,
Whit

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 3, 2017, 4:54:21 PM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Unfortunately, I do not have any such innate idea! Is that a mental disorder?

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:06 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Shafiq,

Namaste. Rationally it seems quite correct to infer the "the innate knowledge of existence of God in every human being." As Hegel argued, even an atheist has to have a concept of God in order to deny or refute it. St Anselm explained that the concept of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be thought' is intrinsic to human reason. 

As far as the existence of such a concept, Descartes and other philosophers refer to God as that whose concept and being are congruent, which is the definition of Truth. 

Thank you for your contribution to this list,

SIncerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.


From: Shafiq Khan <shaf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

Dear All,

              Science deals with physical objects and light/radiation whereas soul is the immaterial/incorporeal entity as such science cannot make any inquiry about soul. The proof of existence of soul is the existence of Ego 'the I in the human beings', the innate knowledge of existence of God in every human being and the book of innate moral law in every human being which are embedded in human consciousness..

With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/867681149.2014720.1493836617633%40mail.yahoo.com.

BMP

unread,
May 3, 2017, 6:02:22 PM5/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Whit, Priyadarshi, and all

Namaste. It is true that most people do not have a specific or determinate conception of God, but all must have at least a comparative idea of greater and lesser concepts. For instance, we can recognize  "all" is greater than "some," a whole is greater than its parts, and so on. Scientists do not yet have a clear idea of the universe, but everyone accepts it is greater than any of the regions or galaxies within it. 

This is not a  European notion. The Sanskrit root of Brahman is brih which means "to be great" or to expand or grow. The suffix -man means absence of limitation. The idea is that everything comes from Brahman, therefore whatever appears has its origin, ground or true being in Brahman. Because there is nothing in existence that is as great as Brahman, it is called nirguna Brahman or non-existent, or sunya, or sunyata, or nothing. This does not mean that Brahman which is the source of all existence is Nothing, but that it is the nothing of the existences that have derived from itself. 

Even to say "I do not have a concept of God" means that you are referring to something you have some general idea about. This generality or immediate universality may not yet be mediated or determinately thought in any particular or individual way, but this is true of all universals. For example, if you were to look for fruit in the market, you would not be able to find it. All you could find would be cherries, grapes, plums, and so on. Fruit as such does not exist, but that does not mean it is not the essence of those instances of fruit that do exist in the marketplace. 

In a similar way God does not exist among those things which are created or expand from God. At the same time God is the essence of all appearances, being the source and ground of them. In this way, with thoughtful consideration, the concept God can gradually become clear to anyone - but not that it has to be implanted, as it were, in you or anyone. Rather by thoughtful reasoning its inherent concept can be recognized within oneself. Thus it is not a matter of converting anyone from an atheist to a theist using philosophy. Each person already has within themselves the idea that merely has to be clarified. Conversing with philosophers or others that have explored that area certainly helps. After all, that is the meaning of sadhu-sanga. 

 Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.



From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 4:53 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 4, 2017, 6:00:02 AM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Whit,

Excellent! I thought along similar lines, but it is better that such a critique of European philosophers comes from a European. Innate ideas are always precarious. Many interpret Plato's recollection as all knowledge being innate. I don't think this is really the correct interpretation. Plato's dialectic is the path towards knowledge. At the time knowledge is acquired it is called recollection. But any arguments for why it is recollection are very weak. It is as if Plato is committed to the existence of an immortal soul in individuals and hence he must bring it in in the acquisition of knowledge. Contemporary thinkers like Chomsky talk about innate abilities, like the language ability. Perhaps there is an innate music ability, an innate mathematical ability, and so on. I find this more acceptable because it makes knowledge more meaningful in the sense we use the innate abilities to acquire knowledge rather than uncover knowledge we already have.

Priyedarshi

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170503190729.GA1973%40black.transpect.com.

Asingh2384

unread,
May 4, 2017, 6:00:02 AM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear All:
Who is an atheist? Is it the one who believes in a God that does not exist or the one who believes in the ultimate universal reality that does exist?

Since the ultimate universal reality can only be ONE and non-dual, the genuine scientific reality and spiritual reality must converge into ONE. While the mainstream science has been lost into the material-only reality, the mainstream religion is blinded by dogma and belief in a personal God that may or may not exist. The challenge for humanity is to merge the knowledge of science and the wisdom of spirituality to reveal the ultimate universal reality to transcend beyond the materialism and dogmatism.

Fortunately this can be done via developing a wholesome integrated scientific model of matter, mind, and consciousness that not only predicts the observed material universe but also vindicates the wisdom of spiritual masters and scriptures.

Proving either Einstein (E=mC**2) wrong or spiritual masters (God) wrong is a loose loose exercise, merging the two is a win win for humanity, science and spirituality.

Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Shafiq Khan

unread,
May 4, 2017, 6:00:02 AM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
             Some members deny the existence of innate knowledge of existence of God in humans. It is only through self introspection & meditation they will know that there is the innate knowledge of existence of God. My trying to convince them with whatever argumentation will be in vain because the only way is 'self introspection'. They may also reread the 'Meditations' by Rene Descartes & my book titled 'Natural World Order & The Islamic Thought' which is available free at https://www.slideshare.net/mohammadshafiqkhan1/natural-world-order-the-islamic-thought.

With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:30 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Whit, Priyadarshi, and all

Namaste. It is true that most people do not have a specific or determinate conception of God, but all must have at least a comparative idea of greater and lesser concepts. For instance, we can recognize  "all" is greater than "some," a whole is greater than its parts, and so on. Scientists do not yet have a clear idea of the universe, but everyone accepts it is greater than any of the regions or galaxies within it. 

This is not a  European notion. The Sanskrit root of Brahman is brih which means "to be great" or to expand or grow. The suffix -man means absence of limitation. The idea is that everything comes from Brahman, therefore whatever appears has its origin, ground or true being in Brahman. Because there is nothing in existence that is as great as Brahman, it is called nirguna Brahman or non-existent, or sunya, or sunyata, or nothing. This does not mean that Brahman which is the source of all existence is Nothing, but that it is the nothing of the existences that have derived from itself. 

Even to say "I do not have a concept of God" means that you are referring to something you have some general idea about. This generality or immediate universality may not yet be mediated or determinately thought in any particular or individual way, but this is true of all universals. For example, if you were to look for fruit in the market, you would not be able to find it. All you could find would be cherries, grapes, plums, and so on. Fruit as such does not exist, but that does not mean it is not the essence of those instances of fruit that do exist in the marketplace. 

In a similar way God does not exist among those things which are created or expand from God. At the same time God is the essence of all appearances, being the source and ground of them. In this way, with thoughtful consideration, the concept God can gradually become clear to anyone - but not that it has to be implanted, as it were, in you or anyone. Rather by thoughtful reasoning its inherent concept can be recognized within oneself. Thus it is not a matter of converting anyone from an atheist to a theist using philosophy. Each person already has within themselves the idea that merely has to be clarified. Conversing with philosophers or others that have explored that area certainly helps. After all, that is the meaning of sadhu-sanga. 

 Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.



From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/152842116.2222209.1493848808552%40mail.yahoo.com.

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
May 4, 2017, 12:12:51 PM5/4/17
to 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 10:00:08PM +0000, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> In a similar way God does not exist among those things which are created or
> expand from God. At the same time God is the essence of all appearances, being
> the source and ground of them.

Dear Dr. Puri,

Of the various concepts of God that other people hold, I find yours
particularly friendly. I accept that the universe is larger than we are, and
that whatever mysterious thing it is, everything and everyone is ultimately
grounded in it. I don't doubt the universe, as such. If this counts for you
as my accepting "God," in this sense I do.

It's when we get to God-as-personage that a polytheistic mythology seems
much wiser to me than any of the monotheistic portrayals of such a God. The
universe presents many faces. Those who believe they've seen the face of a
greater being than themselves may well have; but the heirarchy of greatness
in a universe so large may well extend far beyond any being which would
display its face to any human being. To believe that the next step up in
greatness from myself is the whole universe would be a horrible presumption
of ego. I am not, emphatically, the next best thing to the universe. And the
whole universe, if it could speak, has far better things to do than to speak
to me.

Namaste,
Whit

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 4, 2017, 12:12:51 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Mr Shafiq,


On 03 May 2017, at 16:41, Shafiq Khan wrote:

Dear Mr. Bruno,

                         Mathematics is abstract science and as such cannot deal with entities like soul. 

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on your basic assumptions. I have reason to believe that mathematics might be more fundamental than physics. The physical reality might be the mathematical reality when seen from inside. I tend to take seriously Plato's or Plotinus' conception of soul, because it works for the digital machine, and it explains why it is hard for the soul of the machine to identify itself with a machine.





                         Science cannot believe in something which has no physical identity.

Science is neutral. It cannot prove anything about reality, nor even that there is a reality. We need some faith and courage to propose theories, and the observation of nature can be used to make a theory less or more plausible. But no observation can prove anything about a reality, except my consciousness here and now.





Every wave-motion (light/radiation is a wave-motion) requires a medium to propagate in but science has rejected existence of aether filling the space because science has failed to physically identify the aether but I have shown that aether exists on the same premises on which it was rejected. This is to show that non-physical entities do exist.

I have read your paper quickly, and admit that the flaw has not (yet) strike my eyes. I might reread it. But I have chosen to be a mathematician because I do not believe that physics can solve the mind-body problem. I have come to the conclusion that IF we are digitalizable machine, then physics has to be reduced to a statistics of number's dream. I have extracted a part of the quantum formalism from this, including its "many-world"interpretation". 


 
                         We cannot know whether animals possess the Ego and we cannot know whether animals have the innate knowledge of existence of God.

Here I tend to agree with you. All machine have a sort of innate knowledge of "God", that is: of a Reality which transcend them. They can discover their own ignorance, and even its intrinsic character as long as they identify themselves with piece of matter, or even with numbers. With the humans, that tendency to believe in higher than oneself can be related also to the natural feeling the children can have from their parents, like to feel loved and protected. Childish conception of god can be related to that too, like a nostalgia of childhood. That can lead also to the acceptance of authoritarian argument like "the boss is always right" (not valid!).
Yet, looking deep inside ourself we can feel something bigger, not nameable. 

Then materialist want to identify this with the physical universe. They may be right, but this leads to the mind-body problem, and many tend to dismiss the soul or the mind to avoid to be confronted with that problem. With Mechanism, the notion of Arithmetical truth does play a God-like role: the machine cannot define it (nor do we, despite some appearances). It is responsible for all dreams, and for many other things that we can test. It is also highly *not* computable.





But the book of innate moral law separates the animals & humans and that is the evidence that animals do not possess souls. 

Here I am not sure. Heaven might belong to the simple minds. Animals might be closer to God. Humans are terrible with their fellows. They have invented torture and many means of destruction. They could arm all living creatures, and by claiming they are closer to God than the animals, they might make God nervous for that arrogant bragging. Humans can do wonderful things, and hopes remain, but up to now, those admirable achievements are threatened by its irresponsibility, and perhaps its superiority complex. I think that animals and plants, and even some machines, have soul, but we are blind to it. We can't listen because we feel superior.






                           The very purpose of human life is to know the book of innate moral law, inscribed on every human soul, and to adopt this book of innate moral law in life.

Here my position is subtle. I agree with your saying, but I am not sure it can be said. It is because the moral law is innate, that we might become immoral when we write those laws in a book. Perhaps you agree.
Even for machine, there are truth about them which just become false when asserted. Maybe that is why Lao-ze said that the wise keep silent. It is close to the well known "slogan": "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". And again, that is what I like with animals: they stay silent on the moral things, still acting "morally" naturally. It is more the animals which make me think moral value are innate, than the humans, who claim so often to defend moral ideals, and do the exact contrary.

Sincere Regards,

Bruno Marchal




To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Asingh2384

unread,
May 4, 2017, 12:12:52 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Innate knowledge is not only subjective and relative (not absolute) but may have infinite interpretations/definitions.
 
Then what is real God? Whose God is real God and whose God is a dogma or delusion?
 
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 4, 2017, 12:12:52 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Shafiq,

Fare enough though we have different senses of the use of the word innate. If I say all humans have an innate language ability or if I say that humans are innately good, this does not require any meditation or introspection on the humans' part. Perhaps you are right but practically this excludes most humans who are toiling 60 hours a week for survival and do not have the luxury of meditation. Hence, it is an non-egalitarian innateness. But perhaps God who gave us this innateness is also non-egalitarian. Thank God, that those like Buddha and Christ were egalitarians.

Priyedarshi

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Shafiq Khan <shaf...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
             Some members deny the existence of innate knowledge of existence of God in humans. It is only through self introspection & meditation they will know that there is the innate knowledge of existence of God. My trying to convince them with whatever argumentation will be in vain because the only way is 'self introspection'. They may also reread the 'Meditations' by Rene Descartes & my book titled 'Natural World Order & The Islamic Thought' which is available free at https://www.slideshare.net/mohammadshafiqkhan1/natural-world-order-the-islamic-thought.

With Best Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHYwPz0x-GqkHQbB7PT-7EjBAku%2B3b8U2SBo0eqgb7Xx3A%3DWsw%40mail.gmail.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 4, 2017, 4:41:12 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Avtar,


On 04 May 2017, at 03:53, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear All:
Who is an atheist? Is it the one who believes in a God that does not exist or the one who believes in the ultimate universal reality that does exist?

There is a notion of "atheist" for each notion of God. In my opinion, this makes "atheism" already in a very fuzzy land.

Worse, as Priyadarshi mentionned, there is the difference between the modalities []~g (believe in the non existence of God, strong atheism), and ~[]g (which is agnosticism, in the Mundane sense of the word). The worse here is that atheists want such agnostic on their side, which together with the necessarily vague notion of God, makes "atheism" capable of meaning *any* position.





Since the ultimate universal reality can only be ONE and non-dual, the genuine scientific reality and spiritual reality must converge into ONE.

Glad to hear that :)

But here, in the machine's theology, science will acknowledge something beyond itself. Scientific theology is the scientific study of what is beyond science. For machines, it is the study of their own incompleteness, and the many shapes it can take.



While the mainstream science has been lost into the material-only reality, the mainstream religion is blinded by dogma and belief in a personal God that may or may not exist.

In Occident, that happened in +523, when the Roman Emperor Justinien closed the Academy of Plato in Athene. The greeks researchers were open minded and interested toward the mystical experience, and at the same time were die-hard rationalist. I agree with a German Scholar (Hirshberger) that the God of Plato is Truth. 
Not a truth that anyone might be able to claim, but the one that the sincere heart can search. The theology was born science, the *fundamental science---*by definition*, which means also the one cautious of not making any ontological commitment, except through assumptions/theories/ideas. God is Reality, with the understanding that we cannot prove publicly the existence of a Reality. It transcends us, if it exists.




The challenge for humanity is to merge the knowledge of science and the wisdom of spirituality to reveal the ultimate universal reality to transcend beyond the materialism and dogmatism.

I am very close to this, but it is not easy. The god(s) with names only hide the god(s) without name, and only the last one can genuinely work. There is a theological trap. Some truth can only be discovered from introspection and cannot be publicly asserted, unless it is clear it is a (meta)-deduction in some theory with all the cards on the table. It is *not* a coincidence that religion, which should bring peace, becomes so easily an instrument of war.





Fortunately this can be done via developing a wholesome integrated scientific model of matter, mind, and consciousness that not only predicts the observed material universe but also vindicates the wisdom of spiritual masters and scriptures.

Proving either Einstein (E=mC**2) wrong or spiritual masters (God) wrong is a loose loose exercise, merging the two is a win win for humanity, science and spirituality.

I agree. To be honest, I am not convinced by your critics of E = MC^2, nor that it matters really. But if ever I find a reason to doubt the Mechanist Assumption, I might reread your work, as such approaches can be made consistent with enough strong anti-mechanist axioms. An evidence against Mechanism would still not be a good news, I think, because Mechanism is so simple and deep hypothesis, that once wrong, *many* things get consistent. In fact, even with mechanism, we get already the consistency of inconsistency, so we get perhaps too much dreams, too much error, too much delusions, but that remains to be tested.

Best Regards,

Bruno Marchal





For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 4, 2017, 4:41:12 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Whit,

I wonder what 'greatness' really is. To me there is nothing greater than the sweet chirping of the bird with the backdrop of the sound of the sear where I am right now. Or to observe dew on a blade of grass early in the morning. If there is a God then all Her creation must be as beautiful and as great than any other. So, the notion of greater makes no sense. The same holds if there are many gods or no gods but nature. Every species is important and necessary, so none is greater than any other, neither is any part of the universe or any body greater than any quantum particle. This is why I oppose notions like "higher consciousness" and "cosmic consciousness". I just don't see why they are greater than a deep breath I take on top of Mount Kilimanjaro.

Namaskar

Whit

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170504140832.GB18158%40black.transpect.com.

BMP

unread,
May 4, 2017, 9:36:50 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Whit,

Namaste. You wrote

> I accept that the universe is larger than we are, and
>that whatever mysterious thing it is, everything and everyone is ultimately
>grounded in it. I don't doubt the universe, as such. If this counts for you
>as my accepting "God," in this sense I do.

This is perfectly legitimate in the Vedic tradition. The Bhagavat Purana (3rd canto, chapter 6) mentions the virat-rupa or vishva-rupa as a material manifestation of God. 

Of course modern science accepts that the universe itself has an origin, unless you think it is eternal as considered in the steady state theory, and by some of the ancients. If we consider Being [i.e. the existence of the universe] in relation to its Essence, we are drawn to the notion that Being stands in contrast to Essence as Appearance to Reality. In other words, you don't doubt the universe because it is perceptible at least in principle for you. but perceptions deliver only phenomenal existence/being for us, not the noumenal essence. 

So you may be able to go beyond the universe to something more original as its source. Would you then be able to accept that as God? And if that were not enough, could you also consider an original or primordial mental principle as a possibility for that Essence? Would that then imply a more personalized God for you?

So far as the actual existence of a personal God is concerned, if there were such a Person would we have any reason to believe we could limit in any way such an utterly unimaginable and magnificent being - such as not being able to appear face to face with anyone? 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 12:11 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports

Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate

Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

BMP

unread,
May 4, 2017, 9:36:54 PM5/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Avatar,

Namaste. If we could have knowledge of the Absolute, it would no longer be subjective knowledge but absolute knowledge. Since the Absolute is immanent as well as transcendent, being the essence of all being and beings it is already intrinsic to all creation or manifestations originating from and grounded in that Absolute. This means the Absolute is already implicit or innate in everything and everyone that is manifested from it. An individual who comes to know and inquire into that is no longer focused in subjective knowing but in absolute knowing, in which the Absolute and knowledge about it are the same absolute truth. Such a possibility MUST exist if we have a proper understanding of what the Absolute means. 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.


From: "'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 12:12 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

Whit Blauvelt

unread,
May 5, 2017, 5:03:35 AM5/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Quite beautiful, Priyedarhsi!

It is particularly worrying when "religious" attitudes cause people to turn
away from the beauties of this very particular and differentiated world, in
pursuit of some presumed other place. Especially so given the various
threats to this world by the stresses of population and misuses of
technology. One might hope that at least in religion one would find those
who would care for our garden. Far too often we hear from those who consider
themselves religious their hope that this world will end, that some "purer"
one be revealed. Much as they claim worship of "the Creator," they wish
creation to have a do-over.

By "great" I had in mind physical scope. If our Sun is a god, as some have
supposed, how small must it be before the galaxy -- and that one of how many
millions? Still, William Blake's "infinity in a grain of sand" is one of the
finer insights. Yet again, is not your deep breath on top of Mount
Kilimanjaro enhanced by the commanding view from a great summit?

Best regards,
Whit

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 5, 2017, 5:03:53 AM5/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

Responding to your continuous use of incompleteness as a necessary feature of mechanism, I find it very interesting. You have mentioned the Turing test. What about the halting problem? Is it something like incompleteness. A machine can go on at least for a long time, if not infinitely, with the process in the halting problem, by constructing other machines to carry on the task, by producing another machine and so on recursively. In this regard what about the human mind, can it pass on the task to future after its end because of its mortality? Or is it the mortality a constraint that makes the human mind incapable of grasping incompleteness. I know I am all over the place. I had written some vague paper on this. I will dig it out and send it to you. You can comment if you get time.

Priyedarshi

Dear Avtar,


To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/A80CC3A6-E89D-471F-B029-25D2168C4E70%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
May 5, 2017, 10:58:27 AM5/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi,


On 05 May 2017, at 10:13, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Bruno,

Responding to your continuous use of incompleteness as a necessary feature of mechanism, I find it very interesting.

Thanks for telling.

You have mentioned the Turing test.

Did I? I don't really believe in the Turing test. But it is another topic. 


What about the halting problem? Is it something like incompleteness.

It is related. If we accept Church Turing thesis, we can derive incompleteness from the halting problem. I might explain this in more details later.

We can summarize all this by the fact that we begin to understand that we don't know what numbers and machines are capable of. Even very elementary arithmetic appears to be quite transcendental, and explainably so with Mechanism.

The difference between true and false in arithmetic is a bit like the border of the Mandelbrot set: definite, but very complex. For example:






A machine can go on at least for a long time, if not infinitely, with the process in the halting problem, by constructing other machines to carry on the task, by producing another machine and so on recursively. In this regard what about the human mind, can it pass on the task to future after its end because of its mortality? Or is it the mortality a constraint that makes the human mind incapable of grasping incompleteness.

I think human grasp incompleteness. They might not like it, but that is emotional. He makes us very modest.

Machine grasp also incompleteness, they too can prove their own incompleteness. It is "Gödel third incompleteness theorem", that Gödel promised to prove but never did, probably because Hilbert and Bernays will prove it in 1937. Then Löb generalized it beautifully.

My problem is that, when I explain those things, I need to explain a bit of mathematical logic. It is not well known, and frequently misunderstood. Even a great guy like Penrose was wrong on Gödel, and as deter physicists to dig on that issue, alas.




I know I am all over the place. I had written some vague paper on this. I will dig it out and send it to you. You can comment if you get time.

OK. I will read them.

We will have opportunity to come back on this. Incompleteness is a lucky event for Mechanism, as it kills the possible reductionist conception that we might have on machine and number. In fact, I want argue that incompleteness provide literally a theology to the machine, and that it is close to the neoplatonists and neopythagoreans (and many other mystics). It is also testable, because it put strong constraints on what the physical appearances can look like. 

In a sense, this leads to a sort of "strong atheism", as there would be no Creator, nor Creation.
But in another sense, this leads to a universal machine "neoplatonist" theology, with an "Inner God"  looking like a universal dreamer which can't avoid losing Itself in an (arithmetical) web of "dreams". There is also an "Outer-God", which might be just the arithmetical truth (which transcend us, but might, or not, be a personal god (open question)).

The amazing possibility, is that the inner god can wake up. But it is not clear to me, at this stage, if that provides It with an advantage or an handicap, to survive on the "terrestrial plane".  I still try to figure that out.

Bruno





To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 5, 2017, 10:58:29 AM5/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Whit,

Thanks! I understand now. Of course it is the small in the scope and scape of the grand that makes it beautiful. I was really thinking of William Blake while writing what I did.I am totally unmoved by miracles such as the parting of the sea as each day I get up and get through with my activities and am still alive is a miracle. Fauja Singh is a miracle (If you know who he is).


Priyedarshi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170505020820.GA30769%40black.transpect.com.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 5, 2017, 5:27:35 PM5/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

Thanks! I find this very fascinating.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,



Priyedarshi

Dear Avtar,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/83F1205B-6D16-4297-9FB9-16210E846076%40ulb.ac.be.

Asingh2384

unread,
May 5, 2017, 5:27:36 PM5/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Puri Ji:
Generally agree with some qualifications.
 
Knowledge is relative to the knower and relative to the manifested (space-time) temporal forms of the eternal absolute.
 
Knowledge, knower, forms, space-time must transcend via merging (dissolving) into the eternal absolute. Absolute is an asymptotic Zero-point state of the whole existence.
 
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
 


-----Original Message-----
From: 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, May 4, 2017 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

Dear Avatar,

Namaste. If we could have knowledge of the Absolute, it would no longer be subjective knowledge but absolute knowledge. Since the Absolute is immanent as well as transcendent, being the essence of all being and beings it is already intrinsic to all creation or manifestations originating from and grounded in that Absolute. This means the Absolute is already implicit or innate in everything and everyone that is manifested from it. An individual who comes to know and inquire into that is no longer focused in subjective knowing but in absolute knowing, in which the Absolute and knowledge about it are the same absolute truth. Such a possibility MUST exist if we have a proper understanding of what the Absolute means. 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.


From: "'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Scientific skepticism can use some reflection

Innate knowledge is not only subjective and relative (not absolute) but may have infinite interpretations/definitions.
 
Then what is real God? Whose God is real God and whose God is a dogma or delusion?
 
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages